I read William Norman Grigg over at LewRockwell.com frequently, and the catalog of abuses of citizens by police he has put together is making me fear the police about equally with criminals these days.

I no longer trust the police, and fear what they will do to me if I call for help and I possess a gun. I also fear that it is just as likely they won't respond quick enough, competently, or even at all, if I call for help and don't have a gun.

I believe they have little incentive if any in the current system to protect and serve the citizenry. They would be just as happy to find a way to charge me with a crime if I call 911 as to apprehend the criminal who triggered the need to call. For this and other reasons, I have become persuaded by the Libertarian folks to consider that a private police market would be safer and more effective.

Frequently I tell my wife, while ranting against what I perceive to be a budding police state and an accelerating trend toward military tactics and equipment being used by police, that all that needs to happen is some government clerk types in a wrong letter in the name field of an arrest warrant on a computer, and we will have a SWAT team smash through our door at 2am with multiple guns drawn and aimed at my child, wife, and myself. With the high likelihood of error or overreaction such a tactic inherently engenders, one or all of us innocent law-abiding citizens can easily end up dead or maimed. And of course if that happens, the likelyhood is extremely small that any punishment will be given to the police officer(s) who commit this crime.

Wouldn't "are you going to come out peacefully or not?" be a better approach? This isn't war after all, it's civilization.

Now I have this horrible video to show her to confirm that my paranoia is not without even more empirical data to back it up, unfortunately.

Anyway, to the point, which is, owning a gun for self defense is not a panacea, and it introduces complex additional risks.

I'm likely to either get charged with a crime if I hold someone at gunpoint or shoot in self defense in my own dwelling, have my civil rights violated by the police who will use the situation as a pretext to rifle through all my belongings and confiscate all my guns (and bully me into opening my safe, if I have one), or just plain get blown away by the police.

I find fascinating and appreciate guns as gadgets, for target shooting and plinking. I do not like violence, and I strongly desire not to get in a violent confrontation with anyone, including a criminal. If I had to use a gun in self defense, I sincerely hope that an assailant would just run away, so I wouldn't have to shoot. If I choose to have guns for sport and hobby, should I just leave them in the safe to be safe from the police, and take my chances with the crooks? That is not acceptable, as I am not willing to just stand defenseless and not fight for the safety of my family if I need to.

Yet now I am faced with the significant possibility that if I should have to defend my family with a gun, the police might finish the job the criminal started.

All of this has compelled me to consider that technological measures (alarm systems, perimeter motion sensor, warning and surveillance systems) might actually reduce the probability of harm to my family better than guns, or rather, may significantly increase the likelyhood that a criminal act against my family (mainly while at home) can be repelled without needing to resort to the use of the gun. Yet I really can't accept the idea of not owning a gun as a last resort, even if it brings with it the risk of getting finished off by the cops.

I'm pretty upset folks. Any encouraging discussion will be appreciated.

natasha69

10-10-2009, 10:03 AM

Folks,
All of this has compelled me to consider that technological measures (alarm systems, perimeter motion sensor, warning and surveillance systems) might actually reduce the probability of harm to my family better than guns, or rather, may significantly increase the likelyhood that a criminal act against my family (mainly while at home) can be repelled without needing to resort to the use of the gun. Yet I really can't accept the idea of not owning a gun as a last resort, even if it brings with it the risk of getting finished off by the cops.

I'm pretty upset folks. Any encouraging discussion will be appreciated.

I have a full alarm system which dials the police station if any one of the zones is engaged (e.g. window break or motion sensor) (along with the alarm company's stickers various windows). I also have motion sensing flood lights in the front and back of the house (500 Watt halogen, turns night into day). Lastly I have two Rotts, along with a sign on the fence that says "This home protected by Rottweiler security".

Of course you should use technology and other deterents to avoid having to use a gun. From my icon you can guess that I am from South Africa. There, everyone has 12 foot high brick walls around the houses, and most of the owners break bottles and put them on top of the walls. Their alarm/security forces are not the police and they come with fullly automatic weapons and clear the house, putting everyone in cuffs including the owner until they can determine who is the "baddie". The owners prefer that, and I do to considering the nature of the crimes there. Even with all those deterents, most everyone there carries, or at least has several guns inside their houses.

The point is, you of course should use any and all deterents to make mr bad guy think to himself "that house looks like more trouble than this other house". Now, if he decides otherwise, I will defend my house and my family will necessary force. Nothing says hello like OO buckshot.

tyrist

10-10-2009, 10:10 AM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

6172crew

10-10-2009, 10:14 AM

Just a few things, the tactics used by Police are in response to lessons learned.

If the clowns in the Hollywood shoot out wouldnt have used FA goods to shot people the LAPD and other agencies wouldnt issue rifles to the beat cops.

The list goes on, but that one hit the news and we all know about it.

My buddy is LASD and they were called to check on a possible suicide, the cops could see the guy in his house walking around with a handgun. They got the guy on the phone and asked him to come out and talk, which the home owner said "No, I want you guys to leave". The cops left because no laws were broken.

Having a solid plan in place in case of an emergency will help you end the situation the way you want it to.

Im not so sure about the whole Police state thing, these guys/gals are doing a job with rules put in place by lawmakers.

Phil3

10-10-2009, 10:14 AM

That is VERY tough to watch. I worry about these situations myself. Our local police department is very good, and think it unlikely such a thing would happen here. But still, from what I heard, I hope that couple gets all the money they are asking for. And even that is not enough.

- Phil

bulgron

10-10-2009, 10:18 AM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

Yep.

Mr.CRC

10-10-2009, 10:19 AM

I have a full alarm system which dials the police station if any one of the zones is engaged (e.g. window break or motion sensor) (along with the alarm company's stickers various windows). I also have motion sensing flood lights in the front and back of the house (500 Watt halogen, turns night into day). Lastly I have two Rotts, along with a sign on the fence that says "This home protected by Rottweiler security".

Of course you should use technology and other deterents to avoid having to use a gun. From my icon you can guess that I am from South Africa. There, everyone has 12 foot high brick walls around the houses, and most of the owners break bottles and put them on top of the walls. Their alarm/security forces are not the police and they come with fullly automatic weapons and clear the house, putting everyone in cuffs including the owner until they can determine who is the "baddie". The owners prefer that, and I do to considering the nature of the crimes there. Even with all those deterents, most everyone there carries, or at least has several guns inside their houses.

The point is, you of course should use any and all deterents to make mr bad guy think to himself "that house looks like more trouble than this other house". Now, if he decides otherwise, I will defend my house and my family will necessary force. Nothing says hello like OO buckshot.

Wow! Interesting perspective. Thanks for replying. I always like to hear how things work in other countries, whether I agree or not. It's food for thought.

Good day!

pretz

10-10-2009, 11:53 AM

Law Enforcement has one huge failing: They are not Gods. They cannot know 100% for sure instantaneously just who is the bad guy/good guy in every instance. They have to make snap judgements in order to protect themselves and the innocent. Sometimes those judgements have tragic results.

Imagine you are speeding down a highway and an elk jumps out in front of you. Immediately you must decide to brake or swerve or a combination. You haven't any time, you must act immediately. Training helps a great deal, but sometimes you don't even have time to say, "Sh...".

I would talk about scenarios with an officer. Find out ahead of time what YOU can do to make the situation safer and clearer, giving officers a bit more time to come to a decision.

berto

10-10-2009, 12:17 PM

Are you more worried that you'll be harmed/killed by a criminal or the police responding to your call?

If an armed criminal enters your home and kills you then you won't have to worry about being shot by the police.

Brianguy

10-10-2009, 12:23 PM

wow! If everything she said is true, that cop needs to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the minimum.

Sniper3142

10-10-2009, 12:28 PM

I don't trust cops any more than I do any other public servant. In fact, I trust them a lot less than most.

Power corrupts and they no longer protect and serve.

VHK

10-10-2009, 12:48 PM

I don't see why anyone is surprised. Police have been getting away with this stuff forever. Thank God that there was a recording and that the homeowner survived. I believe that police have an incentive to shoot people because when you think about it, they always get a paid vacation afterwards. The cold part is that the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing but I am not surprised.

Quser.619

10-10-2009, 1:23 PM

And yet the thousands or millions of daily or weekly interactions w/ police do not produce such extreme outcomes. Come on people lighten up, that same sort of thinking is what is being used to justify AB 962. It's 1 bullet that kills or hurts someone, maybe several, but the politicians are completely satisfied using those few of out what, millions, to reign in further control.

I say be prepared for worst, but remain open for the best or you spend your time needlessly worrying about only the worst. It's that mentality that that develops such an acute tunnel-vision that we get the current laws & attitudes that exist in Sacramento today.

Quser.619

10-10-2009, 1:24 PM

And yet the thousands or millions of daily or weekly interactions w/ police do not produce such extreme outcomes. Come on people lighten up, that same sort of thinking is what is being used to justify AB 962. It's 1 bullet that kills or hurts someone, maybe several, but the politicians are completely satisfied using those few of out what, millions, to reign in further control.

I say be prepared for worst, but remain open for the best or you spend your time needlessly worrying about only the worst. It's that mentality that that develops such an acute tunnel-vision that we get the current laws & attitudes that exist in Sacramento today.

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 1:56 PM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

Ok, let me ask you this. How do you know if they are a deadly threat?

It's 3am and you are now up due to the noise of someone braking a window/door in your home. Do you yell a statement like, "hello, are you armed with a gun or knife or any other deadly weapon? If they say no then you go and talk to them and kindly ask them to leave? If they say yes do you then ask them to wait while you go and get your home defense weapon from its storage place?

NO! You identify yourself, go to a safe room/place in the house with your family and stay there and call 911 while holding your peace maker and wait for the PD.

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 2:10 PM

I was mearly trying to say that you dont know the intentions of the intruder, so be safe, avoid a confrontation, hide safely with the family and wait for the PD.

pretz

10-10-2009, 4:27 PM

I was mearly trying to say that you dont know the intentions of the intruder, so be safe, avoid a confrontation, hide safely with the family and wait for the PD.

That is contrary to WWRD (What Would Rambo Do?)!

Your reasonable and sane suggestion could only be interpretted as anti-testosterone!

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 4:32 PM

That is contrary to WWRD (What Would Rambo Do?)!

Your reasonable and sane suggestion could only be interpretted as anti-testosterone!

How is that?

So are you saying my suggestion is... weak/soft?

dwtt

10-10-2009, 4:39 PM

I was mearly trying to say that you dont know the intentions of the intruder, so be safe, avoid a confrontation, hide safely with the family and wait for the PD.

If someone were to break through your door or window at 3AM in the morning, it's likely not a welcoming party from the next door neighbor. Most reasonable people of average intelligence would realize the person breaking into their house is up to no good, and would have reasonable cause to fear for their safety. I don't know what Rambo would do, since he doesn't post to this forum any more.

HUTCH 7.62

10-10-2009, 4:42 PM

I have a full alarm system which dials the police station if any one of the zones is engaged (e.g. window break or motion sensor) (along with the alarm company's stickers various windows). I also have motion sensing flood lights in the front and back of the house (500 Watt halogen, turns night into day). Lastly I have two Rotts, along with a sign on the fence that says "This home protected by Rottweiler security".

Of course you should use technology and other deterents to avoid having to use a gun. From my icon you can guess that I am from South Africa. There, everyone has 12 foot high brick walls around the houses, and most of the owners break bottles and put them on top of the walls. Their alarm/security forces are not the police and they come with fullly automatic weapons and clear the house, putting everyone in cuffs including the owner until they can determine who is the "baddie". The owners prefer that, and I do to considering the nature of the crimes there. Even with all those deterents, most everyone there carries, or at least has several guns inside their houses.

The point is, you of course should use any and all deterents to make mr bad guy think to himself "that house looks like more trouble than this other house". Now, if he decides otherwise, I will defend my house and my family will necessary force. Nothing says hello like OO buckshot.

Jeez South Africa is that bad.

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 4:50 PM

If someone were to break through your door or window at 3AM in the morning, it's likely not a welcoming party from the next door neighbor. Most reasonable people of average intelligence would realize the person breaking into their house is up to no good, and would have reasonable cause to fear for their safety. I don't know what Rambo would do, since he doesn't post to this forum any more.

I agree with you. But what is wrong with trying to avoid (if possible) a confrontation and let the PD do their job? It keeps you out of the formula. Im not sayin run, just be smart.

bodger

10-10-2009, 4:52 PM

If someone were to break through your door or window at 3AM in the morning, it's likely not a welcoming party from the next door neighbor. Most reasonable people of average intelligence would realize the person breaking into their house is up to no good, and would have reasonable cause to fear for their safety. I don't know what Rambo would do, since he doesn't post to this forum any more.

If I recall, there is a legal term called "rebuttable assumption" that addresses this very situation.

You assume that person is there to do you harm and act accordingly and sort it out later.

dwtt

10-10-2009, 4:59 PM

I agree with you. But what is wrong with trying to avoid (if possible) a confrontation and let the PD do their job? It keeps you out of the formula. Im not sayin run, just be smart.

In your own house, there's no place to run to. Noone is suggesting the police shouldn't be allowed to do their job, but in reality, the police can't be everywhere and the minutes it takes for them to respond to a 911 call can mean the difference between life and death for the homeowner and his family. During that time, if contact is made with the intruder, the homeowner should not hesitate to use whatever force he feels necessary to protect himself and his family.

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 5:08 PM

In your own house, there's no place to run to. Noone is suggesting the police shouldn't be allowed to do their job, but in reality, the police can't be everywhere and the minutes it takes for them to respond to a 911 call can mean the difference between life and death for the homeowner and his family. During that time, if contact is made with the intruder, the homeowner should not hesitate to use whatever force he feels necessary to protect himself and his family.

Agreed. :gunsmilie:

Roadrunner

10-10-2009, 5:39 PM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

Uhuh, and this coming from someone who potentially uses a gun to arrest a burglar whether or not they have a gun. If someone is in my house uninvited, they are a threat but so long as they don't shoot at me, I will refrain from shooting at them.

pretz

10-10-2009, 6:01 PM

How is that?

So are you saying my suggestion is... weak/soft?

What I am saying is that your strategy is efficient and effective, but will be rejected by ersatz heroes.

I know, I should have included a smiley face and a definition of ersatz for the benefit of knuckle-draggers.

DK9mm

10-10-2009, 6:10 PM

What I am saying is that your strategy is efficient and effective, but will be rejected by ersatz heroes.

I know, I should have included a smiley face and a definition of ersatz for the benefit of knuckle-draggers.

Understood.:)

Meplat

10-10-2009, 8:29 PM

If you are honest to god in fear of great bodily harm to yourself or others, shoot. That's the only logical and moral thing to do. Worry about the cops and the DA later.

I read William Norman Grigg over at LewRockwell.com frequently, and the catalog of abuses of citizens by police he has put together is making me fear the police about equally with criminals these days.

I no longer trust the police, and fear what they will do to me if I call for help and I possess a gun. I also fear that it is just as likely they won't respond quick enough, competently, or even at all, if I call for help and don't have a gun.

I believe they have little incentive if any in the current system to protect and serve the citizenry. They would be just as happy to find a way to charge me with a crime if I call 911 as to apprehend the criminal who triggered the need to call. For this and other reasons, I have become persuaded by the Libertarian folks to consider that a private police market would be safer and more effective.

Frequently I tell my wife, while ranting against what I perceive to be a budding police state and an accelerating trend toward military tactics and equipment being used by police, that all that needs to happen is some government clerk types in a wrong letter in the name field of an arrest warrant on a computer, and we will have a SWAT team smash through our door at 2am with multiple guns drawn and aimed at my child, wife, and myself. With the high likelihood of error or overreaction such a tactic inherently engenders, one or all of us innocent law-abiding citizens can easily end up dead or maimed. And of course if that happens, the likelyhood is extremely small that any punishment will be given to the police officer(s) who commit this crime.

Wouldn't "are you going to come out peacefully or not?" be a better approach? This isn't war after all, it's civilization.

Now I have this horrible video to show her to confirm that my paranoia is not without even more empirical data to back it up, unfortunately.

Anyway, to the point, which is, owning a gun for self defense is not a panacea, and it introduces complex additional risks.

I'm likely to either get charged with a crime if I hold someone at gunpoint or shoot in self defense in my own dwelling, have my civil rights violated by the police who will use the situation as a pretext to rifle through all my belongings and confiscate all my guns (and bully me into opening my safe, if I have one), or just plain get blown away by the police.

I find fascinating and appreciate guns as gadgets, for target shooting and plinking. I do not like violence, and I strongly desire not to get in a violent confrontation with anyone, including a criminal. If I had to use a gun in self defense, I sincerely hope that an assailant would just run away, so I wouldn't have to shoot. If I choose to have guns for sport and hobby, should I just leave them in the safe to be safe from the police, and take my chances with the crooks? That is not acceptable, as I am not willing to just stand defenseless and not fight for the safety of my family if I need to.

Yet now I am faced with the significant possibility that if I should have to defend my family with a gun, the police might finish the job the criminal started.

All of this has compelled me to consider that technological measures (alarm systems, perimeter motion sensor, warning and surveillance systems) might actually reduce the probability of harm to my family better than guns, or rather, may significantly increase the likelyhood that a criminal act against my family (mainly while at home) can be repelled without needing to resort to the use of the gun. Yet I really can't accept the idea of not owning a gun as a last resort, even if it brings with it the risk of getting finished off by the cops.

I'm pretty upset folks. Any encouraging discussion will be appreciated.

RideIcon

10-10-2009, 9:06 PM

Im sure every level headed person on this forum has had difficulties with all these situations, it just comes down to do you want to risk the bad guys or the other bad guys...

Mr.CRC

10-10-2009, 9:11 PM

Mr.CRC,

I totally hear where you're coming from and I feel the same way you do. When I hear stories of police wrongdoings it's somewhat worrisome, but when there's no repercussions to their actions is what really disturbs me. There's always going to be the occasional story of a rogue cop who looses his temper or the unfortunate incident where a good guy gets shot accidentally. Those I can come to terms with. But what I see goes beyond that.

Here's some data points (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) for people to ponder. And what's up with more than one million people being stopped by police (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/08/us/AP-US-Stop-and-Frisk.html) in New York City? Or police allegedly stealing money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWEgJmf36w) from people who haven't been convicted of any crime?

The policies and personnel in place seem to losing the trust and confidence of the general public. They are eroding peoples' sense of freedom and rights and it's a trend I'd really like to see come to an end. Can't we get back to the police interactions depicted in the 1975 show SWAT (http://www.youtube.com/show?p=6x8BmHghKFI)?

Thanks for the feedback.

I also used to think that the police were trained to deal with hostage type situations at an extremely measured pace. Now I think what I am realizing is that there is a good chance they will immediately shoot at whomever is holding a gun with no warning. This vastly complicates planning strategies for HD.

One responder suggested actually talking to police. While this goes against the dictum "never talk to the police..." perhaps there is some context in which I can approach police to ask about this and learn how to minimize the risk of defusing a HD situation if one ever arises.

Mr.CRC

10-10-2009, 9:22 PM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

I understand what you are saying. I also respect if this is your choice of the manner in which to respond. I further agree with laws which define this action as justified.

The situation is a bit complicated in my personal view however, because I maintain an ethical perspective that if there is a chance to defuse a situation without shooting, then that is a preferable course of action. This is also what I used to expect of the police, but perhaps this is no longer valid.

Whether or not the hope of getting a bad guy to not do a bad thing is worth the risk of a moment to hesitate and ask someone to "get out," "drop your weapon and you will not be harmed," or similar attempts at defusing is a tough question. I have not yet figured this out, and I suspect I may not be able to figure it out. I may not know the answer unless I have the misfortune to have to deal with such a situation.

I did recently watch an NRA video on combat handgun shooting accuracy which included a HD section. The advise given was (assuming that you are not in direct confrontation with an intruder but believe an intruder is present) is to verbally warn the intruder that you are armed and that you will feel threatened if approached and will fire upon the intruder. This was ideally to be performed while the 911 dispatcher was recording it all.

Real life I understand is much less ideal.

Thanks for the input.

Good day!

tyrist

10-10-2009, 9:48 PM

Uhuh, and this coming from someone who potentially uses a gun to arrest a burglar whether or not they have a gun. If someone is in my house uninvited, they are a threat but so long as they don't shoot at me, I will refrain from shooting at them.

Actions change greatly depending on whether you are in uniform or not. If I was in plain clothes then my gun is put away when the uniformed Officers show up or I might be mistaken for the bad guy.

Roadrunner

10-10-2009, 10:05 PM

Actions change greatly depending on whether you are in uniform or not. If I was in plain clothes then my gun is put away when the uniformed Officers show up or I might be mistaken for the bad guy.

Hm, maybe I should get a badge or something that says "KING OF MY CASTLE" or something to that effect so that I can keep from getting shot.

Meplat

10-11-2009, 12:14 AM

Dispatch the bad guys ASAP, so that you can be unarmed and totally passive, preferably laying face down on the front lawn with your hands behind your back. This includes the wife and kids.

Police are trained to survive. You and your kids are acceptable collateral damage.:mad:

Thanks for the feedback.

I also used to think that the police were trained to deal with hostage type situations at an extremely measured pace. Now I think what I am realizing is that there is a good chance they will immediately shoot at whomever is holding a gun with no warning. This vastly complicates planning strategies for HD.

One responder suggested actually talking to police. While this goes against the dictum "never talk to the police..." perhaps there is some context in which I can approach police to ask about this and learn how to minimize the risk of defusing a HD situation if one ever arises.

Carnivore

10-11-2009, 12:53 AM

Dispatch the bad guys ASAP, so that you can be unarmed and totally passive, preferably laying face down on the front lawn with your hands behind your back. This includes the wife and kids.

Police are trained to survive. You and your kids are acceptable collateral damage.:mad:

It is very sad you say this but I fear it is more true these days. As an officer 15+ years ago I believed that I would rather take a bullet an die then to shoot an innocent person. I could not live with the fact that I took a home owner down such as the video in the link. I left the force because the scum bags I had to deal with I wouldn't die for to protect them in anyway at all. With members of my family still in the Sheriffs office I see the degradation of suitable candidates an the slow erosion of both physical an mental attributes these new recruits are required to have or posses. When I was hired you had to have all your classes finished before the academy to take you. We started running 1 mile on day one an were at 6 by the end of the class. We were taught when to shoot an not. Who to shoot an not. Best practices were drilled in our heads till it became second nature.

Now 1 mile in 10 mins an that is the limit of your physical requirements. No age limit an ethics an basic criminology is all that is required. The pool they have to pull from is so low in genetic material that it is scary who they give a badge too. Who wants to put their lives on the line for 45k a year. Anyone with any brains will take the degree route an make at least 3 times that to start. Now that isn't all of them but I have to say this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

My biggest problem is this. If anyone of use did that to a neighbor we would be arrested an jailed for attempted murder but people that are supposed to be "TRAINED" to handle this walk away scott free? OOPS my mistake, I thought you were the bad guy. They can arrest someone for what they THINK is a crime an let them go with a big fat sorry with impunity. Sorry but that is wrong anyway you want to spin it. At the very least this guy shouldn't be a cop anymore he clearly doesn't have the intelligence to say "hay I am a cop"!!!

If you think I am wrong then think about this....If this situation were reversed an the home owner shot the cop thinking he was another intruder with a gun...he would be going to jail for life. How is that justice?

bigstick61

10-11-2009, 1:00 AM

Jeez South Africa is that bad.

From what I've read and heard, the country was, despite some of the quite distastefl things done, much better under the apartheid era government. I wouldn't be surprised if the country eventually slides down into a state like that in Rhodesia; lord knows what will happen once Mandela dies. Crime has skyrocketed, policies are now racist towards non-Africans, the country has majorly moved leftwards (Marxists tend to do that), its power has decreased, crime has skyrocketed, gun control has majorly increased and from what I've heard in practice tends to target minorities more, and alot of the national policies are just plain harmful. I don't see how ending apartheid made anything better; it seems to have made things worse.

On another note, I've heard South Africa has far better laws regarding defense of self and property compared to, say California, although I've also heard it's not what it used to be. I recall reading an article by Col. Cooper that said that at that time (it was the late 1990s I believe, before the big gun control bills were able to be passed) the use of force laws still included a right to retaliation, meaning you could still shoot if they were fleeing with your property or after having done or attempting to have done major harm, or if they are particularly dangerous and such. Pretty close to an ideal. Their laws were very liberal compared to California, and probably still are.

bigstick61

10-11-2009, 1:46 AM

After looking it up, I guess South Africa did water down their use of force laws under the current government; even though use of force including lethal force to defend property of yourself or others, including preventing a thief from fleeing, is still technically legal, the new government has raised alot of doubts, and in practice the government has restricted the use of force beyond what is technically legal and there can be a tendency to unfairly apply laws, particularly when the shooter and the criminal are of different races. Still, it seems they may not be quite as bad as California yet in many areas.

MrSigmaDOT40

10-11-2009, 2:22 AM

I understand what you are saying. I also respect if this is your choice of the manner in which to respond. I further agree with laws which define this action as justified.

The situation is a bit complicated in my personal view however, because I maintain an ethical perspective that if there is a chance to defuse a situation without shooting, then that is a preferable course of action. This is also what I used to expect of the police, but perhaps this is no longer valid.

Whether or not the hope of getting a bad guy to not do a bad thing is worth the risk of a moment to hesitate and ask someone to "get out," "drop your weapon and you will not be harmed," or similar attempts at defusing is a tough question. I have not yet figured this out, and I suspect I may not be able to figure it out. I may not know the answer unless I have the misfortune to have to deal with such a situation.

I did recently watch an NRA video on combat handgun shooting accuracy which included a HD section. The advise given was (assuming that you are not in direct confrontation with an intruder but believe an intruder is present) is to verbally warn the intruder that you are armed and that you will feel threatened if approached and will fire upon the intruder. This was ideally to be performed while the 911 dispatcher was recording it all.

Real life I understand is much less ideal.

Thanks for the input.

Good day!

You got that DVD in the mail too ey? lol

locosway

10-11-2009, 11:04 AM

Never detain anyone with a gun. If an intruder is a deadly threat then shoot them. If they are not a deadly threat then you don't need to have the firearm out.

I just don't get this. If someone is in my house I'm coming at them armed. They will be detained at gun point unless they are a threat. If they're a deadly threat they will be shot. I will not have my weapon hidden or not in a ready position awaiting the intruder to give me a deadly reason to shoot them. They will know I'm armed when they're starring down the barrel of my 10mm.

tyrist

10-11-2009, 11:50 AM

I just don't get this. If someone is in my house I'm coming at them armed. They will be detained at gun point unless they are a threat. If they're a deadly threat they will be shot. I will not have my weapon hidden or not in a ready position awaiting the intruder to give me a deadly reason to shoot them. They will know I'm armed when they're starring down the barrel of my 10mm.

If that is what you wish to do but I would ask you to put the gun away when the police show up.

Too bad the FOS simulators are so expensive because everyone here would benefit from it.

kcbrown

10-11-2009, 1:18 PM

Too bad the FOS simulators are so expensive because everyone here would benefit from it.

FOS simulators?

tyrist

10-11-2009, 9:01 PM

FOS simulators?

It stands for Force Option Simulators and is a training tool for the police. It will run you through a bunch of different scenarios some of which are shooting scenarios. It's also effective at teaching politicians a good lesson.

Sunwolf

10-12-2009, 7:52 AM

I was mearly trying to say that you dont know the intentions of the intruder, so be safe, avoid a confrontation, hide safely with the family and wait for the PD.